Friday, May 01, 2015

Senator Ted Cruz, Candidate


Part 1 - Note to Snake Hunters Website from D/F Top Copy, NYC

Toss the stale thinking and tired political clichés aside in favor of this simple fact. Senator Ted Cruz is the only one on the horizon who is equipped with the talent, ideology and conviction to repair the damage caused by eight destructive years of the Obama regime. So today, I am planting a stake in the ground. I support Senator Cruz for President of the United States of America in the coming election. Watch him speak before the Senate a few days ago, and see if he doesn’t move you toward the same decision I’ve made.

Enough of the fence sitters and naysayers! Senator Ted Cruz is the genuine article, and believe me, they don’t come along everyday.

Part 2
To: Dan Friedman - Thank you... and I certainly agree that Senator Ted Cruz is among the top brainy candidates with the potential to lead this nation out of the dreadful six years of Obama-mania (and guided every step of the way by "senior advisor" Valerie Jarrett). The G.O.P. has at least two dozen highly qualified people capable of providing this unique nation the opportunity to recover the moral high ground in both our critical domestic legislation, and in regaining lost ground in international affairs. The importance of a business friendly environment is essential to begin lowering the crushing effects of the $18,000,000,000,000.00 national debt; our 'military-industrial-complex' is suffering with an unresolved budget deficit... and the only viable solution is Energy Independence from O.P.E.C. and that obviously translates to Saudi Arabian Oil Wealth.

Today, the U.S.A. is Number One in Natural Gas Production, and very soon, thanks to Hydro-Fracturing Technology we will lead the world in Oil Production.

Part 3


SENATOR TED CRUZ

Today I rise to talk about what has come to define the Obama Administration, which is a consistent pattern of lawlessness that disrespects the Constitution, that disrespects the congress, and that disrespects the people of the United States. In any administration under any president, the person charged with being the chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general. I've been blessed to work
in the U.S. Department Of Justice and there is a long tradition, a bipartisan tradition of attorneys general remaining faithful to the Law and to the Constitution, and setting aside partisan considerations of politics. Unfortunately, that tradition has not been honored during the Obama Presidency. Attorney General Eric Holder has been the most partisan attorney general the United States has ever seen. This Attorney General has systemically refused to do anything to seriously investigate or prosecute the I.R.S. targeting citizens for expressing their First Amendment Rights. Indeed, he has assigned the investigation to a major democratic donor and partisan democrat who has given over $6,000 to President Obama and the democrats. Eric Holder has abused the office, and has turned it in many respects into an arm of the democratic party. He is the only attorney general in the history of the United States to be held in Contempt Of Congress. And so there are many, including me, who would very much like to see Eric Holder replaced. There are many, including me, who would like to see an attorney general who will return to the traditions of the Department Of Justice, of fidelity to law, and that includes most importantly, the willingness to stand up to the president who appointed you, even if he or she is from the same political party. During the conformation hearings I very much wanted to support Loretta Lynch's nomination. Bringing in a new attorney general should be turning a positive page in this country, but unfortunately the answers that Ms. Lynch gave at the conformation hearings, in my opinion render her unsuitable for conformation as Attorney General Of The United States. That was a shame. Ms Lynch's record as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York had earned her a reputation as a relatively no nonsense prosecutor, so it was my hope we would see similar approach and similar answers from Ms Lynch at the conformation hearing. Instead, she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the Holder Justice President. When she was asked whether she would defend President Obama's Illegal Executive Amnesty, which President Obama himself has acknowledged no fewer than 22 times... that he had no constitutional authority to undertake, and which a federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded affirmatively, saying she thought the administration's contrived legal justification was-- Quote-- reasonable. The nominee went on to say see sees nothing wrong with the president's decision to unilaterally grant legal status and work authorizations although explicitly barred by federal law, to nearly five million people who are here in this country illegally. When asked further -- Quote -- Who has more right to a job, A United States citizen, or a person who came to this country illegally, she responded -- Quote -- I believe that the right and obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Well, Mr. President, a very large majority of the American citizens would beg to differ. Rule of Law matters. When she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion, the dubious theory that President Obama has put forth to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty, she could give no limits to that theory. When asked if a subsequent president could use 'prosecutorial discretion' to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws, and to collect no more Income Taxes in excess of 25%, she refused to answer. When asked if a subsequent president could use that same theory to exempt the State of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor law and environmental law, she refused to answer. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a G.P.S. censor on the car of every single American without 'probable cause' she refused to answer. That extreme view was rejected by the United States Supreme Court, Unanimously. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment give no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church or synagogue's choice of their own Pastor or their own Rabbi, she again refused to answer. Likewise, that extreme view was rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama said that the Holder Justice Department says nothing about religious liberty, or a church or synagogue; Justice Kagan said, "I find your position amazing". Well, I'm sorry to say that Ms Lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing position that the First Amendment does not protect the religious liberty of people of faith in this country. Then asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a United States citizen on U.S. Soil, if that individual posed no imminent threat, she refused to answer. When asked if she would be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the I.R.S. Targeting of Citizens and Citizen Groups for their political views, something which President Obama said he was -- Quote -- angry about, and the American People had a right to be angry about, and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at a minimum not a major Obama donor, she refused to answer. This nominee has given every indication she will continue the Holder Justice Department's lawlessness. That was here testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wanted to support this nomination. I wanted to see a new Attorney General who would be faithful to the law, but her answers made that impossible. And I would note there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the Constitution after he was confirmed as our Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has told the Senate that's what she's going to do. And that means each and every one of us bears responsibility. In my view, no Senator can vote for this conformation consistent with his or her oath, given the answers that are given. And I would note a particular onus falls on the new Republican majority. For several months, I've called on the Republican majority to block the conformation of President Obama's Executive and Judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the President rescinds his lawless amnesty. I'm sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. The Republican majority if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed. I would note there are more than a few voters back home what exactly is the difference between a democrat and a republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as our Attorney General, promising the exact same lawlessness, what's the difference? That's the question each of us will have to answer to our constituents when we come home. In my view, the obligation of every senator to defend the Constitution is front and center why we are here. We have a nominee who has told The United States Senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the President of the United States in the next 20 months. We are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness, more recklessness, more abuse of power, more executive lawlessness. Now, more than ever we need an Attorney General with the integrity and faithfulness of law to the President Attorneys General in both parties, Republican and Democrat, have done so, when credible allegations of wrong-doing by Richard Nixon were raised, his Attorney General, Elliott Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, to investigate, regardless of partisan politics. Likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing by Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General Janet Reno, a Democrat, appointed Robert Fiske the Independent Council to investigate those allegations. Eric Holder has been unwilling to demonstrate that same faithfulness to law, and unfortunately Ms. Lynch has told the senate that she too is unwilling to do so. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to vote No on Cloture, and to insist on an Attorney General who will uphold her oath to the Constitution, and to the people of the United States of America.
I Yield The Floor.


REUTERS/Jason Reed
by Matthew Boyle24 Apr 2015Washington, DC367
The vote that mattered in confirming Loretta Lynch to become the next Attorney General was not her actual confirmation vote, but the cloture vote that set that up, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Friday. Cruz said:
Yesterday I gave an impassioned floor speech calling on Senators to stop this confirmation. The place to stop it was the cloture vote. Cloture requires 60 votes. Republicans have a majority. We have 54 Republican senators. Had Republicans simply stood together, Ms. Lynch would not be attorney general today. But unfortunately Republican leadership decided that it was not worth fighting to defend the rule of law. Loretta Lynch is attorney general today because Republican leadership decided they wanted her to be attorney general. And I said on the Senate floor yesterday there are a great many people across this country wondering why exactly did we have an election when we fought so hard in 2014, when a Republican Senate confirms the exact Attorney General Harry Reid’s Democratic senate would confirm?
While 10 Republican senators voted for Lynch’s final confirmation, it was the cloture vote—which had a 60-vote threshold—where Senate GOP leadership could have stopped Lynch if they wanted to. A whopping 66 senators voted for cloture, which means 20 Republicans technically voted for Lynch’s nomination—and by extension, for President Obama’s executive amnesty in doing so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell personally whipped votes for Lynch’s nomination, and for the cloture vote, according to a report from The Hill‘s Alex Bolton.
Those Republicans who voted for cloture alongside all 46 Democrats are: Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Thune (R-SD) and Thom Tillis (R-NC).
Cruz said those Republicans responsible for confirming Lynch and all the Democrats violated their oaths of office, since Lynch has guaranteed that she will uphold President Obama’s lawlessness, including especially his executive amnesty. Cruz said:
For several months, I have been leading the fight to stop the confirmation of Loretta Lynch—and the reason is simple: Ms. Lynch came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to articulate any constitutional limits whatsoever on the authority of the president. When asked how she would differ from Eric Holder, the most partisan attorney general this nation has ever seen, she refused to state even a single difference. I had wanted to support Ms. Lynch’s confirmation precisely because Eric Holder has so undermined the Department of Justice, and like many others I was eager to see a new attorney general sworn in. But the answers Ms. Lynch gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee over an extended period of questions refused to acknowledge any limits on the president’s power, and she made clear that she intended to be a rubber stamp for unlimited executive power in the hands of President Obama. In my view, no senator—Democrat or Republican—could vote to confirm Ms. Lynch consistent with his or her oath of office. Some say, confirming Loretta Lynch means Eric Holder is no longer Attorney General. But there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the law and abusing his office after he was confirmed. Ms. Lynch looked senators in the eye and told us she intends to disregard the law. For senators to vote to confirm an attorney general in that circumstance means they are complicit in the lawlessness.
Cruz was not present for the final vote—meaning he didn’t cast a vote on final confirmation—and he told Breitbart News that’s because cloture is where it could have been stopped. He went on to say:
I would note that some of the press had a field day that I was not physically present for the final confirmation vote. For two months I led the fight to stop her confirmation. I voted against confirmation in the Senate and repeatedly questioned Ms. Lynch. I urged my colleagues in writing, in public, in private and on the national stage not to confirm Ms. Lynch. I flew back to Washington to cast the vote that mattered, the cloture vote, yesterday morning. That was the 60-vote threshold that could have stopped Ms. Lynch and I was there to cast that vote and I spoke on the Senate floor urging my colleagues to vote no. Once Republicans had invoked cloture, her confirmation was a done deal. The final vote was a 50-vote threshold and there were ample votes to confirm her. I had a scheduling conflict that did not enable me to be there for what was in the end a meaningless vote because leadership had already decided to give President Obama and Harry Reid what they wanted. So while I was not physically present, under Senate rules being absent is the same thing as a no vote.

When Breitbart News noted that his not voting on final confirmation bolsters his argument that the real vote was cloture, he added that “that’s exactly right.” “The fight to defeat this nomination was on cloture, and Republican leadership did not want to fight that fight,” Cruz said

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Kudoes To You, saying what we need-----
is to pull our collective heads out of the sand long enough to acknowledge what is really happening in this great country, before it's too late.

This comment from Boomtown, USA.
_____________________